# Amicus Curiae Brief — Larrance v. Illinois Human Rights Commission > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385002_0714%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1989 - **Citation:** 489 U.S. 1054 ## Text : , Supreme Court, US. ius FILED _ FEB 2 1989 Be ' | JOSEPH F. SPANIOL, UR, No. 88-1135 CLEenn ro — _-—-_-. In The SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES - October Term, 1988 CHARLES LARRANCE, Petitioner, Vv. 7 THE ILLINOIS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, MACON COUNTY FARM BUREAU, COUNTRY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, COUNTRY INSURANCE COMPANY, COUNTRY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, COUNTRY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and COUNTRY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Respondents. Petition for Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONER GARY H. PALM Counsel of Record EDWIN F. MANDEL LEGAL AID CLINIC of the University of Chicago Law School and United Charities of Chicago 6020 South University Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60637 (312) 702-9611 Attorney for Amicus Curiae TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... cccccccccccccccce PRELIMINARY STATEMENT... 2s eeeeeeeceeceee INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE.......csceeee. STATEMENT OF FACTS... cccccccccccccee coe. ARGUMENT... cccccccccccccscccccccccsccecs oe I. CERTIORARI SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE THE DECISION BELOW ALLOWING NULLIFICATION OF A CLAIM DUE TO FAILURE BY THE STATE AGENCY TO COMPLY WITH STATUTORY TIME LIMITS IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THIS COURT'S DECISION IN LOGAN V. ZIMMERMAN BRUSH CO... II. CERTIORARI SHOULD BE GRANTED TO RECTIFY THE ILLINOIS AGENCIES' AND COURTS' REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH LOGAN.......... CONCLUSION... cccccccccccccscccccscccccce CONSENTS TO FILING OF AMICUS BRIEF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 10 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page Bennett v. Tucker, 827 F.2d 63 (7th Cir. 1987) ee @eeee#e#@*# @eeeeeeseee3s2veee#ee#ee#see*e7nee#@ee#ee#ee#ee#eereeee#e#ee#e#e#e# 2 Board of Governors v. Illinois Fair Employment Practices Commission, 78 I1l. 2d 543% 399 N.E.2d 590 (1979)... eeeetetee eeee 7 Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Company, 455 Usb 422 PEPER Db esse teteceesae eeeeee#e# e*eee#e? 1 Love v. Pullman Co., 404 U.S. 522 CEPR ces ec eneesece er ee Lebhheeseevéeeasee 6 kabzak v. County of Berks, 815 F.2d 17 (3d ot BOB ecw csccese e@eeeeee#s? eeee#eee#ee#8e#¢# ee 6 Steffen v. Meridian Life Insurance Co., 859 F.2d 534 (7th Cir. BEOO sé cescceccecnses 6 Tillman v. City of Boaz, 548 F.2d 592 (Sth « TP koe 2 era errs e*seeeoeesee5see#ee#e?#e# ceca STATUTES Illinois Human Rights Act, Ill. Rev. Stat., CR. 68, 7-101 et seq. (1987) eeeeeeeee eeee 2 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT In the decision below, the Illinois courts have again allowed a state-created cause of action for discrimination to be destroyed because of the failure of the agency to comply with statutory time limits. As such, the decision below violates the Fourteenth Amendment under this Court's unanimous holding in Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1982), a case which Illinois agencies and courts have ignored. Certiorari should be granted so that victims of discrimination in Illinois receive nearings on the merits rather than losing their claims as a result of the actions of the state agency. INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE The Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic ("the Clinic") has for the past 20 years devoted a significant portion of its practice to the representation of victims of employment discrimination. Its clients have frequently suffered from the failure of the state agency to comply with required procedures and have a strong interest in seeing that the law governing those claims is correctly applied. The Clinic represented the plaintiff in Logan, as well as the plaintiffs in Bennett v. Tucker, 827 F.2d 63 (7th Cir. 1987), discussed infra. The Illinois courts and biases ata have repeatedly refused to follow Logan. Instead, they continue to allow the failure of state employees to comply with statutory time limits to negate individuals' property rights in statutorily-created causes of action. The Illinois Human Rights Act, like the Fair Employment Practices Act which preceded . it ("the Act"), is the sole state remedy for persons Claiming to be victims of discrimination. It is the Clinic's experience that employment discrimination claimants generally do not seek counsel to represent them until sometime after their charge has been filed with the state agency. BREESE Indeed, the purpose of the administrative procedure for prosecuting claims of employment discrimination was to encourage claimants to bring their claims pro se. In the decision below, the Illinois courts have yet again penalized pro se plaintiffs for the actions of the state agency. The Clinic's cYients have a strong interest in ensuring that Illinois courts do not continue to ignore Logan. STATEMENT OF FACTS For purposes of the petition, the Following facts are relevant (references are to the opinion of the Fourth District of the Illinois Appellate Court's decision reprinted in the appendix accompanying Petitioner's brief): lL. Petitioner was discharged for allegedly discriminatory reasons. App. lé6a. 2. Petitioner attempted to file a charge with the Illinois Fair Employment Practices Commission, now the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("the Department") well within the statutory time limit. App. l6a. a. Although the Act created an absolute right to file the charge, the Department's then applicable procedures did not permit petitioner to file his charge until the Department had completed its investigation. App. 1/7a-18a. 4. By the time the Department completed its investigation, the statutory time period ror filing a charge had expired. App. 19a. 2 The Illinois courts held that petitioner could not pursue his charge because it had not been timely filed. App. 22a-23a, 26a. ARGUMENT CERTIORARI SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE THE DECISION BELOW ALLOWING NULLIFICATION OF A CLAIM DUE TO FAILURE BY THE STATE AGENCY COMPLY WITH STATUTORY TIME LIMITS IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THIS COURT'S DECISION IN LOGAN V. ZIMMERMAN BRUSH CO. The Illinois Supreme Court, by refusing to review the Appellate District's decision, has destroyed petitioner's statutory claim due tc the failure of the state agency to comply with statutory time limits, without ever allowing that claim to be considered on the merits. Although petitioner complied with the Department's procedural requirements, his claim was terminated because the Department denied him his Statutory right to file a charge within the applicable time limit. As argued in the Petition for Certiorari, penalizing petitioner for the state's failure is in direct conflict with Logan. Therefore, certiorari should be granted. Supreme Court Rule 17.1({c). Moreover, aS was the case in Logan, the decision below “unambiguously divides Cclaims--and thus, necessarily, claimants-- into two discrete groups that are accorded radically different treatment." 455 U.S. at 438-439. Those which the Department timely files are adjudicated; those which it does not are terminated. As Justices Blackmun, Brennan, Marshall and O'Connor concluded in Logan, the random nature of the state's failure to comply with its statutory requirements--resulting in the destruction of the claim--violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 455 U.S. at 441-442. Indeed, as Justice Powell and then-Justice Rehnquist pointed out in Logan, the creation of two classes of claims depending solely on whether the state agency complied with its time limits bears no rational relationship to any legitimate government interest. Id. at 443-444.1 d The consistent body of federal decisions interpreting Title VII, upon which the Act was modeled, is further evidence of the irrationality of the decision below. Federal courts have consistently held that the information provided by petitioner to the Department -- which the Department refused to accept as a charge -- satisfies the parallel Title VII filing requirements. See, e.g., Love v. Pullman Co., 404 U.S. 522, 525 (1971); Steffen v. Meridian Life Insurance Co., 859 F.2d 534, 542 (7th Cir. 1988); Rabzak v. County of Berks, 815 F.2d 17, 20 (3d Cir. 1987); Tillman v. City of Boaz, 548 F.2d 592, 594 (5th Cir. 1977). 6 II. CERTIORARI SHOULD BE GRANTED TO RECTIFY THE ILLINOIS COURTS' AND AGENCIES' REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH ,LOGAN. The Illinois human rights agencies and the Illinois courts have ignored this Court's decision in Logan. This Court should grant the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari so that victims of discrimination in Illinois are not deprived of their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. The Department frequently takes responsibility for various aspects of processing the charge because most complainants are proceeding pro se. However, timid Kabibeet tence, negligence or bureaucratic inefficiency, the Department sometimes misses a deadline or otherwise fails to comply with a required procedure. Despite the fact that the claimant was not at fault in the Illinois agencies and courts have consistently penalized them for the Department's failures and held that the charge is barred. Inexplicably, this pattern of decisions has not changed since Logan. In Logan, the Illinois Supreme Court had held that the Department's failure to conduct a fact finding conference within 120 days deprived the agency of jurisdiction and terminated the charge. This Court reversed. Similarly, in Board of Governors v. Illinois Fair Employment Practices Commission, 78 Ill. 2d 143, 399 N.E.2d 590 (1979), the Illinois Supreme Court decided that the agency's failure to complete its investigation within the required 180 days deprived the agency of jurisdiction and terminated the complainant's claim. Despite this Court's subsequent holding in Logan, the Department refused to reassert jurisdiction in these cases. A federal 2 The effect of the decision below is to absolutely destroy the statutory cause of action of petitioner (and those similarly Situated) as the Act does not permit a judicial action if a charge was not timely Filed with the Department. 8 class action was filed and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected the Department's arguments that Logan did not apply to these claims. Bennett v. Tucker, 827 F.2d 63, 69 (7th Cir. 1987). Now, in this case, the Illinois courts have once again allowed agency delay to bar a Claim before the Department. It is important to the victims of discrimination in Illinois that they be able to rely on the state agencies without fear that agency mistakes will destroy their claims. As noted, nearly all these complainants are proceeding pro se--indeed, the procedures were designed to encourage pro se proceedings--so that there is no lawyer watching the agency to make sure it meets each deadline and satisfies each procedural requirement. While complainants may in appropriate cases be held responsible for their own mistakes and delays, Logan dictates that they not be penalized for the mistakes and delays of state employees. If complainants lose it should be because of a decision on the merits or because of some failure by them. Otherwise their rights to due process and equal protection are violated. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above the petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted. Dated: Chicago, Illinois February 2, 1989 ‘GARY H Coung@l of Record Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic of the University of Chicago Law School and United Charities of Chicago 6020 S. University Ave. Chicago, Illinois 60637 (312) 702-9611 10 February 2, 1989 Larrance v. Illinois Human Rights Commission, No. 88-1135 On behalf of the respondents Macon County Farm Bureau, Country Casualty Insurance Company, Country Insurance Company, Country Mutual Insurance Company, Country Life Insurance Company and Country Capital Management Company, I hereby consent to the filing of an amicus curiae brief on behalf of petitioner in the above case by Gary H. Palm of the Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid clinic. | A J Ag, James,Fiffer ° David Strauss January 27, 1989 Larrance v. Illinois Human Rights Commission, No. 88-1135 On behalf of the respondent, Illinois Human Rights Commission, I hereby consent to the filing of an amicus curiae brief on behalf of petitioner in the above case by Gary H. Palm of the Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic. January 30, 1989 Larrance v. Illinois Human Rights Commission, No. 88-1135 On behalf of the petitioner, Charles Larrance, I hereby consent to the filing of an amicus curiae brief on behalf of petitioner in the above case by Gary H. Palm of the Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic. c = Timothy Eaton January 27, 1989 Larrance v. Illinois Human Rights Commission, No. 88-1135 On behalf of the respondent, Illinois Human Rights Department, I hereby consent to the filing of an amicus curiae brief on behalf of petitioner in the above case by Gary H. Palm of the Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic. : Z| — VUihiin ‘ . Shelvin Hall that he is a member of the Bar of the Court, and that on February 2, 1989 he caused to be served by first class mail a copy of the Brief Amicus Curiae on the following: Name and Address J. Timothy Eaton Coffield Ungaretti Harris & Slavin 3500 Three First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 Attorney for: Charles Larrance CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Gary Palm, attorney of record for the Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic, certifies James Fiffer Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon One IBM Plaza, Ste. 3000 Chicago, Illinois 60611 Attorney for: Macon County Farm Bureau, Country Casualty Insurance Company, Country Insurance , Company, Country Mutual Insurance Company, Country Life Insurance Company, and Country Capital Management Company David Strauss Illinois Human Rights Commission 100 W. Randolph Street, Ste. 5-100 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Attorney for: Illinois Human Rights Commission Shelvin Hall Illinois Human Rights Department 100 ‘W. Randolph Street Ste. 10-100 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Attorney for: Illinois Human Rights Department Dated: Chicago, Illinois February 24 1989 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385002_0714%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.